wdiff rfc8059.original rfc8059.txt

Network Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Arango
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 8059 S. Venaas
Intended status:
Category: Experimental Cisco Systems
Expires: June 8, 2017
ISSN: 2070-1721 I. Kouvelas
Arista Networks Inc.
D. Farinacci
lispers.net
December 5, 2016
January 2017

PIM Join Attributes
for LISP Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Environments
draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-06.txt

Abstract

This document defines two PIM Join/Prune attributes that support the
construction of multicast distribution trees where the root and
receivers are located in different LISP Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) sites. These attributes allow the receiver site to select
between unicast and multicast
underlay underlying transport and to convey the
RLOC (Routing Locator) address of the receiver ETR (Egress Tunnel
Router) to the control plane of the root ITR (Ingress Tunnel Router).

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft document is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for examination, experimental implementation, and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents
evaluation.

This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF
community. It has received public review and has been approved for
publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not
all documents approved by the IESG are a maximum candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on June 8, 2017.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8059.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. PIM Join/Prune Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. The Transport Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Transport Attribute Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Using the Transport Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Receiver ETR RLOC Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Receiver RLOC Attribute Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Using the Receiver RLOC Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9

1. Introduction

The construction of multicast distribution trees where the root and
receivers are located in different LISP sites [RFC6830] is defined in
[RFC6831]. Creation of (root-EID,G) state in the root site requires
that unicast LISP-encapsulated Join/Prune messages be sent from an
ETR on the receiver site to an ITR on the root site. The term EID "EID"
is short for Endpoint ID. "Endpoint ID".

[RFC6831] specifies that (root-EID,G) data packets are to be LISP-
encapsulated into (root-RLOC,G) multicast packets. However, a wide
deployment of multicast connectivity between LISP sites is unlikely
to happen any time soon. In fact, some implementations are initially
focusing on unicast transport with head-end replication between root
and receiver sites.

The unicast LISP-encapsulated Join/Prune message specifies the (root-
EID,G)
(root-EID,G) state that needs to be established in the root site, but
conveys nothing about the receivers receiver's capability or desire to use
multicast as the underlying transport. This document specifies a
Join/Prune attribute that allows the receiver ETR to select the
desired transport.

The term transport "transport" in this document is intentionally somewhat
vague.
Currently Currently, it is used just to indicate whether multicast or
head-end replication is used. Which used; this means that the outer destination
address is either a unicast or multicast address. Future documents
may specify how other types of delivery, encapsulation encapsulation, or underlay
are used.

Knowledge of the receiver ETR's RLOC address is also essential to the
control plane of the root ITR. The RLOC address determines the
downstream destination for unicast head-end replication and
identifies the receiver ETR that needs to be notified should the root
ITR of the distribution tree move to another site. The root ITR can
change when the source EID is roaming to another LISP site.

Service providers may implement uRPF unicast reverse path forwarding
(uRPF) policies requiring that the outer source address of the LISP-encapsulated LISP-
encapsulated Join/Prune message be the address of the receiver ETR's
core-facing interface used to physically transmit the message.
However, due to policy and load
balancing load-balancing considerations, the outer
source address may not be the RLOC on which the receiver site wishes
to receive a particular flow. This document specifies a Join/Prune
attribute that conveys the appropriate receiver ETR's RLOC address to
the control plane of the root ITR.

This document uses terminology defined in [RFC6830], such as EID,
RLOC, ITR ITR, and ETR.

2. Requirements Notation

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

3. PIM Join/Prune Attributes

PIM Join/Prune attributes are defined in [RFC5384] by introducing a
new Encoded-Source type that, in addition to the Join/Prune source,
can carry multiple type-length-value Type-Length-Value (TLV) attributes. These
attributes apply to the individual Join/Prune sources on which they
are stored.

The attributes defined in this document conform to the format of the
encoding type defined in [RFC5384]. The attributes would typically
be the same for all the sources in the Join/Prune message. Hence Hence, we
RECOMMEND using the hierarchical Join/Prune attribute scheme defined
in [RFC7887]. This hirarchichal hierarchical system allows attributes to be
conveyed on in the Upstream Neighbor Address field, thus enabling the
efficient application of a single attribute instance to all the
sources in the Join/Prune message.

LISP xTRs Tunnel Routers (xTRs) do not exchange PIM Hello Messages Messages, and
hence no Hello option is defined to negotiate support for these
attributes. Systems that support unicast head-end replication are
assumed to support these attributes.

4. The Transport Attribute

It is essential that a mechanism be provided by which the desired
transport can be conveyed by receiver sites. Root sites with
multicast connectivity will want to leverage multicast replication.
However, not all receiver sites can be expected to have multicast
connectivity. It is thus desirable that root sites be prepared to
support (root-EID,G) state with a mixture of multicast and unicast
output state. This document specifies a Join/Prune attribute that
allows the receiver to select the desired underlying transport.

4.1. Transport Attribute Format

0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F|E| Type = TBD| 5 | Length = 1 | Transport |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

F-bit:

F bit: The Transitive bit. Specifies whether the attribute is
transitive or non-transitive. MUST be set to zero. This
attribute is ALWAYS non-transitive.

E-bit:

E bit: End-of-Attributes bit. Specifies whether this attribute is
the last. Set to zero if there are more attributes. Set to 1 if
this is the last attribute.

Type: The Transport Attribute type is TBD. 5.

Length: The length of the Transport Attribute value. MUST be set
to 1.

Transport: The type of transport being requested. Set to 0 zero for
multicast. Set to 1 for unicast. The values from 2 to 255 may be
assigned in the future.

4.2. Using the Transport Attribute

Hierarchical Join/Prune attribute instances [RFC7887] SHOULD be used
when the same Transport Attribute is to be applied to all the sources
within the Join/Prune message or all the sources within a group set.
The root ITR MUST accept Transport Attributes in the Upstream
Neighbor Encoded-Unicast address, Encoded-Group addresses, and
Encoded-Source addresses.

There MUST NOT be more than one Transport Attribute within the same
encoded address. If an encoded address has more than one instance of
the attribute, the root ITR MUST discard all affected Join/Prune
sources. The root ITR MUST also discard all affected Join/Prune
sources if the transport attribute Transport Attribute value is unknown.

5. Receiver ETR RLOC Attribute

When a receiver ETR requests unicast head-end replication for a given
(root-EID,G) entry, the PIM control plane of the root ITR must
maintain an output outgoing interface list ("oif-list") entry for the
receiver ETR and its corresponding RLOC address. This allows the
root ITR to perform unicast LISP-encapsulation of multicast data
packets to each and every receiver ETR that has requested unicast
head-end replication.

The PIM control plane of the root ITR could potentially determine the
RLOC address of the receiver ETR from the outer source address field
of the LISP-encapsulated Join/Prune message. However, receiver ETRs
are subject to uRPF checks by the network providers on each core-facing core-
facing interface. The outer source address must therefore be the
RLOC of the core-facing interface used to physically transmit the LISP-
encapsulated
LISP-encapsulated Join/Prune message. Due to policy and load load-
balancing considerations, that may not be the RLOC on which the
receiver site wishes to receive a particular flow. This document
specifies a Join/
Prune Join/Prune attribute that conveys the appropriate
receiver RLOC address to the PIM control plane of the root ITR.

To support root-EID mobility, receiver ETRs must also be tracked by
the LISP control plane of the root ITR, regardless of the underlying
transport. When the root-EID moves to a new root ITR in a different
LISP site, the receiver ETRs do not know the root-EID has moved and
therefore do not know the RLOC of the new root ITR. This is true for
both unicast and multicast transport modes. The new root ITR does
not have any receiver ETR state. Therefore, it is the responsability responsibility
of the old root ITR to inform the receiver ETRs that the root-EID has
moved. When the old root ITR detects that the root-EID has moved, it
sends a LISP SMR Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) message to each receiver ETR.
The receiver ETRs do a mapping database lookup to retrieve the RLOC
of the new root ITR. The old root ITR detects that the root-EID has
moved when it receives a Map-Notify from the Map-Server. The
transmission of the Map-Notify is triggered when the new root ITR
registers the root-EID
[I-D.portoles-lisp-eid-mobility]. [EID-MOBILITY]. When a receiver ETR
determines that the root ITR has changed changed, it will send a LISP-encapsulated LISP-
encapsulated PIM prune message to the old root XTR xTR and a LISP-encapsulated LISP-
encapsulated PIM join message to the new root XTR. xTR.

5.1. Receiver RLOC Attribute Format

0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F|E|Type=TBD+1
|F|E| Type = 6 | Length | Addr Family | Receiver RLOC
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...

F-bit:

F bit: The Transitive bit. Specifies whether this attribute is
transitive or non-transitive. MUST be set to zero. This
attribute is ALWAYS non-transitive.

E-bit:

E bit: End-of-Attributes bit. Specifies whether this attribute is
the last. Set to zero if there are more attributes. Set to 1 if
this is the last attribute.

Type: The Receiver RLOC Attribute type is TBD+1. 6.

Length: The length in octets of the attribute value. MUST be set
to the length in octets of the receiver RLOC address plus one 1 octet
to account for the Address Family field.

Addr Family: The PIM Address Family of the receiver RLOC as defined
in [RFC7761].

Receiver RLOC: The RLOC address on which the receiver ETR wishes to
receiver the unicast-encapsulated flow.

5.2. Using the Receiver RLOC Attribute

Hierarchical Join/Prune attribute instances [RFC7887] SHOULD be used
when the same Receiver RLOC attribute Attribute is to be applied to all the
sources within the message or all the sources within a group set.
The root ITR MUST accept Transport Attributes in the Upstream
Neighbor Encoded-Unicast address, Encoded-Group addresses, and
Encoded-Source addresses.

There MUST NOT be more than one Receiver RLOC Attribute within the
same encoded address. If an encoded address has more than one
instance of the attribute, the root ITR MUST discard all affected
Join/Prune sources. The root ITR MUST also discard all affected
Join/Prune sources if the address family is unknown, unknown or the address
length is incorrect for the specified address family.

6. Security Considerations

Security of Join/Prune Attributes attributes is only guaranteed by the security
of the PIM packet. The attributes specified herein do not enhance or
diminish the privacy or authenticity of a Join/Prune message. A site
that legitimately or maliciously sends and delivers a Join/Prune
message to another site will equally be able to append these and any
other attributes it wishes. See [RFC5384] for general security
considerations for Join/Prune attributes.

7. IANA Considerations

Two new PIM Join/Prune attribute types need to be assigned. Type have been assigned: value 5
is being requested
for the Transport Attribute. Type Attribute and value 6 is being
requested for the Receiver RLOC
Attribute.

The "PIM Join/Prune Transport Types" registry needs to be has been created for
the Join/Prune Transport attribute. The name of the registry should be PIM Join/Prune
Transport Types. The registration policy is IETF Review,
Review [RFC5226], and the values are in the range 0-255. This
document assigns the value 0 for multicast and value 1 for unicast.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC5384] Boers, A., Wijnands, I., and E. Rosen, "The Protocol
Independent Multicast (PIM) Join Attribute Format",
RFC 5384, DOI 10.17487/RFC5384, November 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5384>.

[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.

[RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January
2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.

[RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
(Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.

[RFC7887] Venaas, S., Arango, J., and I. Kouvelas, "Hierarchical
Join/Prune Attributes", RFC 7887, DOI 10.17487/RFC7887,
June 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7887>.

8.2. Informative References

[I-D.portoles-lisp-eid-mobility]

[EID-MOBILITY]
Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino,
F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a
Unified Control Plane", draft-portoles-lisp-eid-
mobility-01 (work Work in progress), Progress, draft-portoles-
lisp-eid-mobility-01, October 2016.

[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

Authors' Addresses

Jesus Arango
Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
United States of America

Email: jearango@cisco.com

Stig Venaas
Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
United States of America

Email: stig@cisco.com

Isidor Kouvelas
Arista Networks Inc.
5453 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95054
USA
United States of America

Email: kouvelas@arista.com

Dino Farinacci
lispers.net
San Jose, CA
USA
United States of America

Email: farinacci@gmail.com